146 ARTICLE
The feasibility of alternative dispute resolution
to resolve intellectual property disputes in Jordan
Bashar H. Malkawi*
Background
Before the rise of Islam there was no formal judicial
system. Disputes which arose between the members of a
tribe were customarily settled by referring the disputes to
the leader of the tribe.1 In resolving disputes, the leader
typically resorted to amicable means, including medi-
ation. The leader endeavoured to reach a solution of a
particular dispute in such a way as to maintain solidarity
among his people on the one hand and to maintain his
honourable position on the other.2 Moreover, because of
the commercial and trading relations among these Arab
tribes, all parties found it necessary to conduct dealings
and to settle disputes arising out of those dealings in a
flexible manner. Accordingly, certain forms of concili-
ation or mediation and arbitration came to be known
and were applied by these tribes since early times.
As the rise of Islam was accompanied by a call for
peace, it was only natural for Islam to call for settle-
ment of disputes in an amicable manner. Sharia
includes express provisions relating to amicable settle-
ment of disputes.3 The Qur’an states:
if ye fear a breach between them twain (i.e. husband and
wife), then appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family,
and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, God will
cause their conciliation; for God hath full knowledge, and
is acquainted with all things.4
The Prophet himself resorted to arbitration in his con-
flict with the tribe of Banu Qurayza. Muslim rulers
subsequently followed his example, notably in the dis-
astrous arbitration between Muawiyah (the governor of
Syria) and the Caliph Ali (the Prophet’s son-in-law) in
* Email: bmalkawi@sharjah.ac.ae. The author would like to thank Professor
David A. Gantz for his guidance. Additional thanks to the editor of
JIPLP, editorial staff and the two expert referees for their advisement and
insights into this article.
1 See Faisal Kutty ‘The Shari’a Factor in International Commercial
Arbitration’ (2006) 28 Loyola LA Int’l and Comp L Rev 565, 589– 90.
2 Ibid.
3 The law in Islam may be thought of as being composed of at least two
parts: revealed and non-revealed. The revealed form of Shari’a has two
proper sources: the Qur’an (the holy book) and the sunna (traditions
based on the hadith, sayings and actions of the prophet). Non-revealed
sources of Shari’a, developed by Muslim jurists after the revelation of the
Qur’an and the sunna, include ijma (consensus of Muslim scholars on a
point of law) and qiyas (a sub-ijtihad species of strict analogical
# The Author (2013). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2013, Vol. 8, No.
The author
† Bashar H. Malkawi is Associate Professor of Law
at the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emi-
rates.
This article
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
† The purpose of this article is to examine the
feasibility and working of the conciliatory means
for settlement of intellectual property disputes in
Jordan. Arbitration is the principal mechanism
used.
† This article discusses two specific issues relating
to the use of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) for the resolution of intellectual property
disputes: the reasons why an owner or user of in-
tellectual property rights might prefer to resolve
disputes concerning those rights by means of
ADR and whether disputes involving intellectual
property rights are arbitrable.
† My discussion of the first issue is not specific
to any particular country. However, discussion
of the second issue reports on the state of the law
in Jordan as a case study for other Arab countries.
659 AD. Another example was the Treaty of Medina of
622 AD, a security pact among the city’s residents,
which called for arbitration of any disputes by the
Prophet Muhammad.5 One may say that amicable
reasoning). These are the authoritative sources of jurisprudence
(usul al-fiqh). See Raj Bhala ‘Theological Categories for Special and
Differential Treatment’ (2002) 50 U Kan L Rev 635, 680; John Walbridge
‘Logic in the Islamic Intellectual Tradition: The Recent Centuries’ (2000)
39(1) Islamic Stud. 55, 68.
4 Qur’an 4:35.
5 Charles N Brower and Jeremy K Sharpe ‘International Arbitration and
the Islamic World: The Third Phase (2003) 97 AJIL 643; S Breckenridge
Thomas ‘International Arbitration: A Historical Perspective and Practice
Guide Connecting Four Emerging World Cultures: China, Mexico,
Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia’ (2006) 17 Am Rev Int’l Arb 183, 206– 12;
Joshua F Berry ‘The Trouble We Have with the Iraqis is US: A Proposal
for Alternative Dispute Resolution in the New Iraq’ (2005) 20 Ohio St J
on Disp Resol 487, 504.
doi:10.1093/jiplp/jps210
Bashar H. Malkawi . The feasibility of ADR to resolve IP disputes in Jordan
means of settlement of disputes, particularly commer-
cial disputes, are deeply rooted in Muslim and Arab
traditions and have long been implemented in practice.
Despite references to amicable means of settling dis-
putes in Sharia and what social norms would otherwise
suggest, resort to the courts in Arab countries is cur-
rently popular.6 Courts are used to settle a myriad of
cases involving property, marriage, landlord-tenant,
commerce, and labour issues.7 In some cases, people
prefer to bring an action before the courts as part of a
bargaining strategy to obtain concessions from parties
to a case.8 Courts in Arab countries refuse to dismiss
frivolous or inappropriate cases, as compared to the
United States.9 Easy access to courts with lower fees for
case registration and lower attorney fees contribute to
court overload in Arab countries.10 In addition, the
number of lawyers in Arab countries has been increas-
ing in recent years. A country that has a high number
of lawyers is inclined to be more litigious. Given these
factors, it seems safe to state that Arab societies are liti-
gious, perhaps as litigious as US society.
The purpose of this article is to examine the feasibility
and working of the conciliatory means of settlement of
intellectual property disputes in Jordan. While there are
multiple forums for resolving disputes, the principal mech-
anism this article is concerned with is arbitration—the
most commonly used method associated with business
and commercial disputes. Dispute settlement mechanisms
can be broadly divided into binding and non-binding pro-
cedures and hybrids. Arbitration is the private, non-judi-
cial adjudication of a commercial dispute, usually by a
panel of one or three private arbitrators appointed by the
parties, which results in a binding outcome.11
Other dispute settlement mechanisms include medi-
ation. Mediation is the process by which a neutral third
party assists disputing parties in reaching a voluntary
resolution of their dispute.12 Med-arb and mini-trials
are yet other examples of dispute settlement mechan-
6 Rosa Marı́a González Tirados ‘Negotiation. An A-Z Guide’ (2010) 48
Management Decision 1023, 1025 (Arabs prefer to establish personal
relations and resolve issues through mediation or continued negotiation).
7 Nathan J Brown The Rule of Law in the Arab World: Courts in Egypt and
the Gulf (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 1997) 190, 196.
8 This is accomplished through the use of claims and counter-claims. Ibid,
218.
9 Ibid, 191.
10 Ibid.
11 Benjamin F Tennille, Lee Applebaum and Anne Tucker Nees ‘Getting to
Yes in Specialized Courts: The Unique Role of ADR in Business Court
Cases’ (2010) 11 Pepp Disp Resol LJ 35, 49 (2010).
12 The main feature of mediation, as opposed to court suit and arbitration,
is its lack of any means of compulsion. Sets of rules play a fundamentally
limited role in mediation compared to binding arbitration. Ibid, 48 – 49.
See Mark D Bennett and Scott Hughes The Art of Mediation (2nd edn
South Bend, Indiana NITA 2005) 9– 13.
ARTICLE 147
isms. Med-arb combines the elements of mediation
and arbitration, such that a neutral and impartial third
party serves as a mediator, but if the parties are unable
to agree to a settlement, the third party takes on the ar-
bitrator role. In mini-trials, the parties select and then
provide the neutral advisor with background informa-
tion and briefs that will be presented.13 This process
indicates the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s
case and the likelihood of settling the dispute. Collect-
ively, these forms are known as alternative dispute reso-
lution (ADR)—an umbrella term used to encompass a
wide variety of practices.
This article discusses two specific issues relating to
the use of ADR for the resolution of intellectual prop-
erty disputes: (1) the reasons why an owner or user of
intellectual property rights might prefer to resolve dis-
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
putes concerning those rights by means of ADR; and
(2) whether disputes involving intellectual property
rights are arbitrable. My discussion of the first issue is
not specific to any particular country. However, discus-
sion of the second issue reports on the state of the law
in Jordan.
Why consider ADR for intellectual
property disputes?
As a general principle, intellectual property rights are
territorial in scope. The right in each country is deter-
mined by the law of that country and is independent of
equivalent rights governing the same subject matter
such as an invention or trade mark in other coun-
tries.14 In addition, courts generally refuse to apply the
patent and copyright statutes to conduct abroad.15
Although Jordan’s intellectual property laws are not ex-
plicit on this issue, it is understood that these laws do
not apply beyond the country’s borders.16 In contrast,
licensing contracts concerning intellectual property
extend rights and obligations beyond a single nation’s
13 Douglas A Henderson ‘Avoiding Litigation with the Mini-Trial: The
Corporate Bottom Line As Dispute Resolution Technique’ (1995) 46 SC L
Rev 237, 240 –41.
14 William R Cornish, David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin Intellectual Property:
Patents, Copyright, Trademark and Allied Rights (7th edn Sweet and
Maxwell London 2010) 35.
15 Curtis A Bradley ‘Territorial Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of
Globalism’ (1997) 37 Va J Int’l L 505, 514 and 520 (The Supreme Court
has stated that US courts are to presume that legislation of Congress,
unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the
territorial boundaries of the United States. The Court has articulated at
least five justifications for this presumption: international law,
international comity, choice-of-law principles, likely congressional intent
and separation-of-powers considerations).
16 Patent Law of Jordan No 32 of 1999 as amended by Law No 71 of 2001,
art 21, Official Gazette No 4520 (2001); Copyright Law of Jordan No 22
of 1992 as amended by Law No 52 of 2001, art 8, Official Gazette No
4508 (2001).
148 ARTICLE
territorial boundaries. ADR offers parties a range of
valuable advantages over litigation. An owner of intel-
lectual property may use ADR to settle an intellectual
property case for many of the same advantages or
reasons that ADR generally offers in non-intellectual
property cases.
The first advantage relates to certainty. Intellectual
property licensing contracts generally involve parties
from different countries. These contracts may involve
the laws and courts of several countries, which creates
ambiguity in terms of the governing law and proper
jurisdiction.17 Accordingly, one of the primary reasons
for including a contractual clause mandating ADR
rather than litigation of any intellectual property
dispute is to provide the parties with the certainty that,
in the event of a dispute, they will be submitting their
dispute to a single forum for resolution rather than po-
tentially to several different forums in different juris-
dictions. Without such an arbitration provision in the
contract, one party may file a lawsuit in each of the
several different jurisdictions having power to apply its
laws to the parties or contract at hand.
Arbitration and other ADR mechanisms tend to
provide speedier resolutions of disputes than going
through litigation in courts.18 This typically occurs
either because arbitration and ADR proceedings are able
to commence without delay or because of the flexibility
in administering arbitration and other ADR proceed-
ings.19 The speed of dispute resolution is an important
consideration when it involves intellectual property
rights. The reason for this is that court litigation can
take much longer than the period of protection for the
product involved. For example, if the dispute concerns a
patent, which is protected for a maximum period of
twenty years, court proceedings can last five years, thus
17 See Graeme B Dinwoodie ‘Developing A Private International Intellectual
Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality?’(2009) 51 Wm & Mary L Rev
711, 723.
18 Aaron Pereira ‘Licensing Technology to the Brics: The Case for ADR’
(2009) 11 Cardozo J Conflict Resol 235, 246. (Businesses need to know
when a dispute is likely to be decided to determine whether they can
build a new plant, market their new drug, or find other ways to generate
profit. Business people often simply cannot afford to wait for traditional
litigation, especially international litigation, and therefore opt for ADR.)
19 Richard Hill ‘The Theoretical Basis of Mediation and Other Forms of
ADR: Why They work’ (1998) 14 Arb Int’l 174, 182.
20 On average, an intellectual property case in Jordan takes about four to
five years to decide: Jordanian Judicial Council Annual Report on Court
Cases for the Year 2011 (Judicial Council Amman 2011) 65 –68. In the
USA, cases involving computer software disputes, for example, can result
in a litigation process that takes longer than the life-cycle of the relevant
product itself, invariably resulting in damages being awarded too late:
Christian Burhring-Uhle Arbitration and Mediation in International
Business (Kluwer Law International The Hague 1996) 313.
21 Litigation costs are so high because litigation is a highly competitive and
adversarial process that encourages the parties to exaggerate their claims:
Michael J Meurer ‘Controlling Opportunistic and Anti-Competitive
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2013, Vol. 8, No. 2
rendering the case useless or reducing the patent’s life-
span and affecting the patent holder’s profitability.20
Arbitration and other ADR mechanisms can signifi-
cantly reduce the costs of settlement. Typical intellec-
tual property litigation often spans several years with
attorney fees and damage awards commonly in hun-
dreds of millions of dollars. Studies indicate that liti-
gating a patent case costs two to five million US
dollars.21 Copyright and trade mark cases tend to cost
somewhat less than patent cases because they are less
technical. Although arbitrators’ fees can be quite high,
the overall costs are usually lower because arbitration is
in general a shorter process than litigation.22 Thus
there are cost savings associated with arbitration and
other ADR mechanisms when compared to litigation.
The comparative advantage of ADR mechanisms is
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
neutrality at least in the sense of not being affiliated
with a particular nation.23 The valuable aspect of
ADR’s neutrality is the ability of arbitration and medi-
ation to accommodate significantly different legal and
commercial practices and expectations, as often exist
when the parties to the transaction are from both
Western and non-Western traditions. The arbitrator or
mediator, as an independent third party to the dispute,
is there to assist the parties to communicate with each
other in a rational manner, identify disputed issues,
consider available options and reach a decision or
settlement that is fair and equitable to all parties.
Intellectual property disputes often involve propri-
etary know-how with respect to a patented invention
or a trade secret with other proprietary information.
Bringing a lawsuit in a public court of law against a
trade secret infringer presents a risk of losing the confi-
dentiality of that trade secret and its value.24 For
example, trade secret owners may disclose information
Intellectual Property Litigation’ (2003) 44 BC L Rev 509, 516; Murray Lee
Eiland ‘The Institutional Role in Arbitrating Patent Disputes’ (2009) 9
Pepp Disp Resol LJ 283, 284 –85; Mark A Glick, Lara A Reymann and
Richard R Hoffmann Intellectual Property Damages: Guidelines and
Analysis (John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, NJ 2002) 20 (the trial stage costs
each side approximately US $2 million in legal fees and related expenses,
and that average litigation costs continue to increase by up to 15 per cent
each year). The cost to litigate patents in the European Union would be
more than one million Euro at the trial level and a similar amount at the
appellate level: European Patent Office ‘Assessment of the Impact of the
European Patent Litigation Agreement (Epla) On Litigation Of European
Patents’, EPO.org, February 2006, 10 –11.
22 John Yukio Gotanda ‘Setting Arbitrators’ Fees: An International Survey’
(2000) 33 Vand J Transnat’l L 779, 785 –789 (most arbitrators base their
fees on the amount of work performed, except when an arbitral
institution, such as the ICC, sets their fees based on a percentage of the
amount in dispute).
23 Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff and Tom R Tyler ‘Fostering Legitimacy in
Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (2011) 2011 J Disp Resol 1, 8.
24 Timothy S Durst and Cheryl L Mann ‘Behind Closed Doors: Closing the
Courtroom in Trade Secrets Cases’ (2000) 8 Tex Intell Prop LJ 355, 356.
Bashar H. Malkawi . The feasibility of ADR to resolve IP disputes in Jordan
beyond the scope of what is necessary to establish their
case or the actual misappropriation. Accordingly, secret
information which was not infringed could be jeopar-
dized. By the same token, a defendant defending himself
against an owner’s claim may be forced to disclose and
identify trade secrets under his possession to prove that
they vary from those owned by the owner or that the
trade secrets were acquired independently. In such a situ-
ation, the defendant endangers his own trade secrets by
disclosing them to an ill-intentioned plaintiff. Because ar-
bitration and mediation are by definition private, the
confidentiality of such information typically is easier to
ensure than in public court adjudication.25 The arbitrator
is under an obligation not to disclose confidential infor-
mation involved in the dispute.26 In arbitration and me-
diation, even the existence of the dispute can remain
confidential if that is the parties’ preference.
Intellectual property disputes often arise between
parties that have or are likely to have an on-going business
relationship. For example, parties to the dispute may have
a licence relationship in existence prior to the dispute.27
In such a situation, the parties may appreciate the oppor-
tunity to use a mechanism that is much less formal and
aggressive than litigation.28 This method allows the
parties to work out their differences without souring their
relationship or ability to work together in the future.
The status of ADR use for IP disputes
in Jordan
The use of ADR to settle disputes in Jordan is still
lagging behind many other jurisdictions.29 Traditional-
ly, ADR has not played a significant role in intellectual
property disputes in Jordan, which have consumed ex-
tensive court time.30 There are two different sets of
reasons that contribute to this state of affairs. First,
25 Danny Ciraco ‘Forget the Mechanics and Bring in the Gardeners’ (2000)
9 U Balt Intell Prop LJ 47, 76.
26 International organizations employing ADR offer strict rules and
procedures with respect to confidentiality. See eg Arbitration Rules of the
World Intellectual Property Organization which detail the nature of
confidential information, rights and obligations of parties, and role of the
tribunal. See WIPO Arbitration Rules, Arts 52, 73 –76.
27 Scott H Blackman and Rebecca M McNeill ‘Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Commercial Intellectual Property Disputes’ (1998) 47 The
American University Law Review 1709, 1726; Kevin M Lemley ‘I’ll Make
Him an Offer He Can’t Refuse: A Proposed Model for Alternative
Dispute Resolution in Intellectual Property Disputes’ (2004) 37 Akron L
Rev 287, 305.
28 Ibid, 311 –13.
29 Guiseppe De Palo and Linda Costabile ‘Promotion of International
Commercial Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution
Techniques in Ten Southern Mediterranean Countries’ (2007) 7 Cardozo
Journal of Conflict Resolution 303, 313 (few arbitrations probably occur
in Jordan because its society is more civil-service oriented than business-
minded).
ARTICLE 149
there are legal hurdles in that intellectual property laws
lack specific statutory language that would guarantee
the arbitrability of copyright, trade mark and patent
disputes. Second, there are extra-legal hurdles relating
to the context of intellectual property disputes because
they do not arise in a contractual relationship, Jordan-
ian intellectual property laws are recent or Jordan’s
ADR mechanisms are still in their early stages of devel-
opment.
Legal hurdles
The question as to what matters can be arbitrated
becomes problematic when one considers intellectual
property rights.31 Some hold the view that all issues in-
volving intellectual property rights in Jordan are arbi-
trable.32 However, there is evidence suggesting that
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
matters relating to infringement, validity and other
issues are not arbitrable. In contrast to that view, as
will be shown below, courts and State administrative
agencies in Jordan have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
certain intellectual property cases.
There is no specific statutory language in Jordan’s
intellectual property laws guaranteeing the arbitrability
of copyright, trade mark and patent cases. Jordan’s in-
tellectual property laws favour courts rather than
private arbitrators to resolve disputes concerning intel-
lectual property rights. This view is evidenced by the
Copyright Law which provides that, in case of the sus-
picion that an infringement is being committed by a
business which prints, reproduces, produces or distri-
butes works, the court can be petitioned to investigate
the case.33 The copyright, patent and trade mark laws
provide for penal sanctions in case of infringement.34
These penalties arising from illegal acts are not arbitrable.
Compulsory licences are excluded from arbitration by
law.35 Under Jordan’s intellectual property law, there is
30 The number of intellectual property cases decided by Jordanian courts
has grown exponentially. For example, in the year 2000 courts decided
only 10 cases, compared with 584 in 2011. This state of affairs has
strained the judicial system. See The Jordanian Judicial Council, above,
n 20, 99.
31 The question of whether a particular subject matter is arbitrable is often
referred to as a question of “objective arbitrability”: M.A. Smith,
M. Couste, T. Hield, R. Jarvis, M. Kochupillai, B. Leon. J.C. Rasser,
M. Sakamoto, A. Shaughnessy, and J. Branch, Arbitration of Patent
Infringement and Validity Issues Worldwide, 19 Harv. J. Law & Tec 299,
305 (2006).
32 See L.M. Daradkeh and Ala Elden Kasawneh, The Capability of
Intellectual Property Disputes of Being Settled by ADR: Theoretical and
Practical Approach under Jordanian Law, 4 International Journal of
Intellectual Property Management 283, 286 (2011).
33 Copyright Law, supra note 17, art. 36.
34 Patent Law, supra note 17, art. 32; Copyright Law, supra note 17, arts. 51,
52.
35 Patent Law, supra note 17, arts. 22, 26.
150 ARTICLE
no explicit distinction between invalidity of intellectual
property rights raised as a defence against an infringe-
ment claim and an attempt to revoke the entire intel-
lectual property right, in which case only the former
may be arbitrable.36 Moreover, issues of lapse of protec-
tion and cancellation of a registered intellectual prop-
erty right fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court
of Justice, Court of First Instance or the Patents Regis-
trar.37 These issues must be entered into a public regis-
ter and inherently involve public interest. Therefore,
the ultimate authority for determining intellectual
property rights lies in the State authority or judiciary.
While Jordan’s intellectual property laws are silent
on the arbitrability of intellectual property rights, the
Arbitration Law widens the scope of arbitration. Arbi-
tration can cover any legal dispute whatever the legal
nature of the relationship which is the subject matter
of the dispute. The disputing parties can refer any
dispute whether civil or commercial, contractual or
non-contractual, to arbitration.38 However, arbitration
is not permitted in matters that cannot be conci-
liated.39 The Arbitration Law does not clarify or
provide examples of what matters cannot be conci-
liated, but these matters likely include crimes, divorce,
bankruptcy and other matters relating to public order.
The Jordanian Arbitration Law does not have spe-
cific provisions for intellectual property disputes. In
principle, therefore, there is no legal obstacle that
bars an arbitral panel from ruling on intellectual
property disputes. Private parties can contract to
settle their disputes through arbitration. Nevertheless,
it remains unclear whether all issues involving intel-
lectual property rights, including the validity of intel-
lectual property or ownership of the rights, are
arbitrable.40 One can assume that disputes relating to
contractual rights and obligations, such as amounts
of royalty paid in a licence agreement, scope of
licence and guarantees, are arbitrable. This assump-
36 See for example the Patent Law, supra note 17, art. 30.
37 Patent Law, supra note 17, art. 30; Copyright Law, supra note 17, art. 50.
38 Arbitration Law of Jordan No. 31 of 2001, art. 3, Official Gazette No.
4496 (2001). The different schools of Islamic legal thought also have
different opinions regarding the type of matters that may be arbitrated.
The Hanafis believe that arbitration should only be utilized when dealing
with the private rights of parties in commercial or proprietary matters.
The Hanbalis and Shafi’is allow arbitration in all commercial cases, but
not in any other cases. The Malikis, on the other hand, allow arbitration
to be applied to non-commercial cases as well. However, all four schools
of Islamic thought agree that arbitration cannot be used in those disputes
which a judge alone is competent to decide. See Khalid Rashid,
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Context of Islamic Law, 8
Vindobona J. Int’l Com. L. 95, 104 (2004).
39 Id. art. 9.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2013, Vol. 8, No. 2
tion is based on the fact that these are purely private
issues pertaining to the interpretation of an agree-
ment, and they are governed by a licensing agree-
ment, rather than public interest issues, such as
validity and revocation questions, that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Patents Registrar of the Ministry
of Industry and Trade, the National Library Depart-
ment for copyright or Registrar of Trade Marks.
However, it is unclear if the award issued by an arbi-
trator is final and binding only between the parties
to the arbitration or it will have effect on any other
person.41 Also, an open question arises as to whether
intellectual property issues can be subject to arbitra-
tion absent an underlying contractual arrangement.
At any rate, Jordanian courts have not ruled on what
intellectual property issues can be arbitrated. Addition-
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
ally, there is no data in Jordan that would provide
settlement rates or any other data on intellectual prop-
erty disputes resolved through ADR.42 It remains
unknown whether courts in Jordan will permit intellec-
tual property disputes to be arbitrated, and whether
courts will interpret arbitration clauses to encompass
some or all intellectual property claims.
Many Jordanians prefer to use the courts because
this allows them to retain the right to appeal a judicial
decision if the court misapplies the law or makes
some other mistake. The Jordanian Arbitration Law
reflects this preference by excluding appellate review.43
An arbitral award is final and binding on the parties.
Nevertheless, the absence of formal appeal does not
mean that arbitral decisions are never reviewed. Such
review does exist, but it is limited to correcting gross
errors. For example, the Jordanian Arbitration Law
allows an award to be set aside if the panel acted
beyond its authority.44 In sum, the Jordanian Arbitra-
tion Law authorizes judicial review of arbitral decisions
and thus an arbitration award can be vacated but in
narrow circumstances.
40 In contrast, the U.S. Patent Act authorizes voluntary, binding arbitration
of patent validity and infringement issues: see U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.
Section 294(a).
41 Decisions made the Patent Act are not binding on anyone other than the
parties to the arbitration: U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. Section 294(a);
William Grantham, The Arbitrability of International Intellectual
Property Disputes, 14 Berkely J. Int’l L. 173 (1996).
42 The number of cases settled through court-administered mediation in
2011 reached 1,395 cases. Those cases involved labour, insurance, lease,
and banking disputes. See The Jordanian Judicial Council, above, n 20,
99 – 103. No figures are available as to the number of intellectual property
cases settled through ADR whether court-sponsored or otherwise.
43 Arbitration Law of Jordan, supra note 38, Art 48.
44 Ibid, Art 49.
Bashar H. Malkawi . The feasibility of ADR to resolve IP disputes in Jordan ARTICLE 151

Extralegal hurdles Availability of expertise is another reason affecting

the use of ADR to settle intellectual property disputes.
In addition to the legal barriers hindering the use of ADR
In arbitration and other ADR mechanisms, parties are
to settle intellectual property disputes in Jordan, there are
able to select the arbitrators and mediators who will
other reasons why ADR mechanisms are not as common-
hear and consider their disputes.49 Intellectual property
ly used as one might hope. In terms of generating intel-
disputes may involve complex technologies or difficult
lectual property, Jordan and other Arab countries lag
issues of valuation; thus, the lack of qualified Jordanian
behind the rest of the world. The number of patents
experts/arbitrators in the domain of intellectual prop-
registered by Arab countries in the US is much lower
erty makes proceedings less efficient and the outcomes
than that of other countries. For example, between 1980
less acceptable.50 Jordan could attempt to address
and 2000, Israel registered 7652 patents in the USA and
this lack of expertise by establishing a centre to train
South Korea registered 16 328 patents in the USA. Within
staff—judges and arbitrators—on complex infringement
the same 20-year period, Saudi Arabia led the Arab world
cases and other intellectual property issues. Indeed, the
in registering patents in the USA with 171. Egypt had 77,
Arab Intellectual Property Mediation and Arbitration
Kuwait 52, the United Arab Emirates 32, Syria 20 and
Society was formed in 2003 in Jordan to handle intel-
Jordan 15.45 In view of the disparity in the number of
lectual property arbitration.51 Before 2003, Jordan had

Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013

registered patents and other intellectual property pro-
no institutional framework for arbitrating intellectual
ducts between Arab countries and other countries, some
property disputes. The Arab Intellectual Property Me-
doubts can be raised as to the utility of using ADR by
diation and Arbitration Society is still a young institu-
Arab individuals to settle any disputes.
tion that needs time to develop. In the meantime,
Intellectual property disputes rarely arise in a con-
Jordanian parties involved in intellectual property cases
tractual relationship because disputes generally arise
can enlist well-known institutions outside Jordan to
when an individual or a company allegedly violates in-
resolve their disputes through arbitration and other
tellectual property rights of others through unauthorized
ADR mechanism which provide services such as select-
use, copying or imitation.46 In these circumstances, the
ing qualified arbitrators from a roster.52
authority to grant immediate injunctive relief and
Many of Jordan’s intellectual property laws are rela-
impose criminal sanctions is vested in the State. The
tively new. The laws were recently modified and
Court of First Instance may issue an order for the cessa-
enacted only recently on the eve of Jordan’s accession
tion of the infringement of the work, confiscation of the
to the World Trade Organization (WTO). In fact,
work, confiscation of the revenues or destruction of the
Jordan had been on the US Watch List for quite some
reproductions of the work or the copies made of it.47
time, where the USA has been closely watching Jordan’s
Parties seeking injunctive relief to prevent copyright,
intellectual property regime. The situation worsened
patent, trade mark infringement or trade secret disclos-
when there was discussion in 1998 on whether Jordan
ure have to wait until an arbitration panel is formed,
would be targeted with trade sanctions under Special
which can take some time—especially if the parties
301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
employ frivolous delaying tactics.48 The right holders are
Act for failing to adequately protect US copyrights,
thus inclined to pursue their rights through courts,
patents and trade marks. Compliance with the Agree-
which are readily available to issue injunctive relief.

45 Raj Bhala ‘Discovering Great Opportunity in the Midst of Great Crisis:
Building International Legal Frameworks for a Higher Standard of Living:
Doha Round Betrayals’ (2010) 24 Emory Int’l L Rev 147, 180.
46 Robert M Hirning ‘Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement
in Computer Software: Harming One Form of Intellectual Property by
Protecting Another’ (2006) 6(1) Chicago-Kent J Intell Prop 10, 21 –23.
47 Copyright Law of Jordan, above, n 16, Arts 46, 47.
48 D Alan Redfern ‘Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of
Protection—Is the Tide about to Turn?’ (1995) 30 Tex Int’l LJ 71, 83. See
also Alain Fré ‘Delaying Tactics in Arbitration’ (2005) 594 Disputes
Resolution Journal 6– 7 (2005).
49 Martin A Frey ‘Does ADR Offer Second Class Justice?’ (2001) 36 Tulsa LJ
727, 734– 35. (In mediation, the third party is neutral and is invited to
participate in the process. Mediation has been a private process as the
parties hire and pay the mediator. In arbitration, the disputants come
before a third party, the arbitrator.)
50 Jordanian judges also lack sufficient understanding of the complicated
legal and technological issues involving intellectual property cases: Tabbaa
and Partners Concept Paper on Developing a Sustainable IP Judicial
Training Program (United States Agency for International Development,
Washington, DC 2007) 5 (Although the public is confident when it
comes to judicial fairness and integrity, this confidence falls short when
assessing judges’ technical capacity and ability to deal with novel laws
and issues such as IPR. Judicial enforcement in IP cases in Jordan
remains poor and courts take years to settle conflicts and often provide
remedies wholly-inadequate to the goal of deterrence of criminal acts).
51 Wuwei-Hua ‘International Arbitration of Patent Disputes’ (2010– 11) 10 J
Marshall Rev Intell Prop L 384, 389. The activities of the Arab Intellectual
Property Mediation and Arbitration Society include training courses,
publications, and using ADR means to settle intellectual property
disputes: Arab Intellectual Property Mediation and Arbitration Society
‘The Activities of AIPMAS’ AIPMAS.org.
52 Mladen Singer ‘Commercial Arbitration as a Means for Resolving
Industrial Property and Transfer of Technology Disputes’ (1996) 3 Croat
Arbit Yearbook 107, 116 (citing the American Arbitration Association
and WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center).
152 ARTICLE
ment on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) and being taken off the US watch list
of Special 301 helped Jordan accede to the WTO.53
In light of its intellectual property record, Jordan
needs to demonstrate publicly that it effectively enforces
intellectual property rights. Efforts by the Jordanian gov-
ernment to protect foreign intellectual property interests
in Jordan have made front-page news.54 Through this
kind of publicity, Jordan sends a deterrent message to
potential infringing third parties. Moreover, many
lawyers in Jordan automatically resort to litigation to
resolve intellectual property issues.55 The choice to liti-
gate may also be due to the lack of familiarity with ADR
methods. Jordan’s laws and practices thus seem to en-
courage intellectual property holders to pursue violators
through public judicial vindication.
Jordanian ADR is still in its early stages of develop-
ment. Similar to other countries, ADR—court-admi-
nistered mediation mechanisms have recently been
adopted in Jordan.56 For example, the Mediation Law
for Settling Civil Disputes (‘Mediation Law’) was
enacted in 2006.57 Although the title of the law is mis-
leading, it is interesting to note that commercial dis-
putes are included in this law.58 There is therefore no
doubt that arbitrable intellectual property disputes can
be also resolved by mediation.
By virtue of the Mediation Law, a ‘Mediation Direct-
orate’ is established and composed of a number of
judges from both the Court of Peace and Court of First
53 Gary G Yerkey ‘U.S., Jordan Hold Talks in Effort to Avoid Sanctions over
IP Protection’ (1998) 15 Int’l Trade Rep (BNA) 661; Gary G Yerkey ‘U.S.
Removes Jordan from “Watch List” of Special 301 Nations Failing to
Protect IP’ (1999) 16 Int’l Trade Rep (BNA) 2047.
54 Suha Ma’ayeh ‘Improved IPR Enforcement Gets Mixed Reviews’ Jordan
Times (United States Embassy Press Release 10 May 2001) 10; ‘Jordan
Police Intensify Action Against Piracy’ Jordan Times (15 May 2001) 18;
United States Embassy ‘U.S. Embassy Donates Two Vehicles to the Jordan
Standards and Metrology Organization’ (March 2011) (JSMO will use
these vehicles to inspect imported goods to ensure their compliance with
Jordanian standards and to conduct market surveillance to identify and
confiscate counterfeit items).
55 Telephone Interview with Mazen Irsheidat, President of Jordan Bar
Association (12 January 2012).
56 In 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which deals
with the majority of intellectual property appellate disputes, enacted a
mandatory non-fee mediation program for parties seeking to appeal
court decisions of intellectual property disputes: WL Dean ‘Let’s Make a
Deal: Negotiating Resolution of Intellectual Property Disputes Through
Mandatory Mediation at the Federal Circuit’ (2007) 6 John Marshall
Review of Intellectual Property Law 365.
57 The Mediation Law for Settling Civil Disputes No 37, Official Gazette
No 4595 (2006).
58 Ibid, Art 3.
59 Ibid, Art 2.b.
60 Ibid, Art 2.c.
61 Lynn Cole, Nancy Fashho and Ahmad M Yakzan ‘Jordan Leads Arab
Middle East in Mediation’ (2008) Association of Conflict Resolution:
International Section Newsletter 9.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2013, Vol. 8, No. 2
Instance.59 In addition to these judges, the Minister of
Justice may nominate ‘Special Mediators’ and private
mediators approved by the court to settle referred dis-
putes.60 These ‘Special Mediators’ are likely to be
former elder statesmen or high-ranking judges held in
high societal esteem.61 Thus, this law provides for three
types of mediators as a voluntary alternative to litiga-
tion: judges, special mediators and private mediators.
The principal objectives of the mediation requirement,
which the Mediation Law hopes to attain, are the re-
duction to the inflow of new cases which would allevi-
ate the number of cases burdening the court system, in
particular small claims, while at the same time granting
parties a simpler and faster means of dispute resolution
with clearly defined costs and timeframes.
Historically, arbitration, the principal form of alter-
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
native dispute resolution, has long been viewed sceptic-
ally and with hostility in the Arab world.62 Western
arbitrators, in Aramco and Abu Dhabi arbitral awards,
rendered decisions that exclude the Arab countries’ na-
tional legal systems in a humiliating manner.63 Arab
countries are concerned that if ADR methods are used
to settle intellectual property disputes, it will lead to
the domination of Western arbitrators and mediators
over Arab arbitrators and mediators.64 Exclusion of
certain laws or rules for reasons of bias is no longer the
case.65 Although these historical arbitral awards are a
thing of the past, their repetition poses only a remote pos-
sibility. Today, ADR does not presuppose any particular
62 Charles N Brower and Jeremy K Sharpe ‘International Arbitration and
the Islamic World: The Third Phase’ (2003) 97American Journal of
International Law 643 (the legal community throughout the Arab world
is still manifesting its hostility to transnational arbitration mainly as a
result of the great publicity devoted to the criticism of certain
unfortunate arbitral awards).
63 Alexander Orakhelashvili The Position of the Individual in International
Law’ (2001) 31 Cal W Int’l LJ 241, 258– 59 (In Abu-Dhabi Oil
Arbitration, the tribunal held that no domestic law can reasonably be said
to exist. The sheikh administers a purely discretionary justice with
assistance of the Qur’an; and it would be fanciful to suggest that in this
very primitive region there is any settled body of legal principles
applicable to the construction of modern commercial instruments. In the
Aramco arbitration, after it was ascertained that the law of the host State
did not contain the rules on concessionary contracts, the Aramco
tribunal referred to general principles of law, customs and practice in the
oil business and the notions of pure jurisprudence).
64 Abdel Hamid El Ahdeb Role of Arbitration in Dissolving Intellectual
Property Disputes (2009) 12, available at shiac.com (in Arabic); Samir
Saleh ‘Commercial Arbitration in the Middle East: A Study’ in Shari’a
and Statute Law (Graham & Trotman London 1984) 1 (stating that Arab
parties are usually reluctant to arbitrate in a foreign state and under
foreign rules of procedure).
65 Amr A Shalakany ‘Arbitration and the Third World: A Plea for
Reassessing Bias under the Specter of Neoliberalism’ (2000) 41 Harv Int’l
LJ 419, 448– 57 (2000).
Bashar H. Malkawi . The feasibility of ADR to resolve IP disputes in Jordan
procedure or method of proceeding; to the contrary, Arab
parties view ADR as neutral means to settle disputes.
ADR as the way forward
The overall picture of using arbitration and other ADR
methods to settle intellectual property disputes in Jordan
is still emerging. There is a plethora of new issues. Jordan
did not extend arbitration expressly to intellectual prop-
erty disputes. Jordan’s intellectual property laws contain
no specific statutory language guaranteeing the arbitrabil-
ity of copyright, trade mark or patent cases. Further, Jor-
danian Arbitration Law makes no specific provisions for
intellectual property disputes.
Patent rights are property rights created by a sover-
eign entity and recorded in the Ministry of Industry
and Trade’s register. It remains unclear if all issues in-
volving intellectual property rights, including the validity
of intellectual property or the ownership of intellectual
property rights or extent of the rights granted, are arbi-
trable. There is no court precedent in Jordan that would
provide guidance in determining the extent of arbitrabil-
ity of intellectual property disputes.
Nevertheless, private parties may contractually agree
to settle their disputes through arbitration. Disputes
such as those arising from agreements entered between
the parties for use, transfer or development of intellec-
tual property products are considered arbitrable.
Laws in Jordan should be modified by making provi-
sions allowing expressly for intellectual property disputes
to be resolved through arbitration and other means.
With respect to arbitrability, issues pertaining to grant,
ARTICLE 153
validity and infringement should be kept out of the
purview of arbitration. Issues that arise in agreements
between private parties, such as those related to licens-
ing, may be resolved through arbitration. Arbitration
and other ADR means should be time-limited, confiden-
tial and assessed by experts in the relevant field.
Intellectual property disputes generally involve
lengthy proceedings, tremendously costly and resource
demanding, and provide one-sided outcomes. Arbitra-
tion allows parties to bypass the backlogged judicial
system in Jordan. Arbitration can start immediately
and parties can control the arbitration process. Flexibil-
ity exists in selecting arbitrators and procedures thus
reducing time and saving money for the parties
involved. Given the benefits, intellectual property prac-
titioners in Jordan should no longer turn automatically
Downloaded from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 26, 2013
to the court system to resolve intellectual property dis-
putes. Jordanian authorities should establish programs
to encourage enhancement of expertise in intellectual
property cases among judges and lawyers.
Arbitration and other ADR mechanisms should be
available for resolving intellectual property disputes
whether domestic or international. Parties have many
options at their disposal to settle the dispute and choosing
a specific option depends on the particulars of the case
and the type of relationship between the parties. Using ar-
bitration and other ADR mechanisms to settle intellectual
property disputes in Jordan is a novel concept. However,
as intellectual property disputes become more common
and the international nature of disputes increases, the
demand for arbitration and other ADR mechanisms
in Jordan will gain importance.